M9 to S (006)

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica S2 I have used since summer 2013 has the same ISO limitations you know from your Leica M9.

 

Menos, your very kind and thoughtful reply is "sticky-worthy," and gives me a very good insight. I better understand that the S (at least the CCD version) is more likely to supplement rather than replace my M9. For the first time in my camera-purchasing life I am actually thinking off the next camera I will likely purchase once I get the S. I will never sell my M lenses. I as read here, you date a body but marry a lens. Ultimately, with the release of the next generation of M bodies, I expect the price of the M 240 to  drop to where the M9 is now (and cost less than half as much as the cheapest S lens....). It seems to me that the CCD-based S and CMOS M is a very versatile combination. 

To your points. I focus well with the M9, but not great. I have lost many "decisive moment" shots because I was not prepared either by anticipating by pre-focusing, or having the right hyperfocal setting. Focusing is never an issue with my Rollei 6008, nor with the other film cameras I have used.  I have read with interest about the micro-focusing screen, which  looks quite capable. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/229720-microprism-focusing-screen/. Even more interesting is the right angle finder that facilitates a 2x magnification. http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2013/04/new-leica-s-right-angle-finder-by-m-leibfritz/. As I mentioned above, when I would lift the huge Rollei to my eye, people would scatter. It is the antithesis of the M. But as soon as I employed the waist view finder, the camera became far less threatening. I could image the same response to the S with right angle finder. And it would make low level shots much easier to accomplish, and "portraits in the wild" less troubling for the subject. Now that I think about it, you could use any lower, flat surface (table, etc) as an available "tripod" as well. I have found no hands-on reviews.

The computer issue is one you so astutely raise. While mine is a four year old Dell, I configured it well for CS5 PP. It has the fastest processor available at the time and 18 gb of RAM. My scanned Rollei 6x6 files range from 200-400mb (if memory serves). The computer handles them well. But it does still balk if I apply a global adjustment, like sharpening. My more immediate concern is how to store the large S files, as I always shoot in RAW. I suspect I will purchase a separate external hard drive exclusively for them.

I also invested, some years ago, in the splendid 24" NEC MultiSynch screen. With frequent ICC calibration, I get prints from my Epson 7800 that are as close to a screen match as I am likely to obtain - subject to the accuracy of the printer profile. I have been using the canned Epson profiles with its Ultra Smooth Fine Art matte paper. It does not have the Dmax depth of a coated paper, but renders color transitions beautifully. I have found that a piece of frame glass over a print affects the perception of an image as much if not more than the paper it is printed on. So I tend to focus on a paper/profile combination that gets me the best color fidelity. 

Again, Menos, many thanks for sharing for your thoughts and helping to put the strengths and challenges of the S into perspective.

David

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Deliberate1]

Plus a really good screen: otherwise all the color fidelity of the S system is useless. I upgraded my Eizo ColorGraphic display to an even better Eizo, the improvment is HUGE: I always felt unsure about the colors, on the new Eizo I instantly know if I got it right or not. It takes me considerably less time to fix the colors.

 

Hardware screen calibration and a video card with 30bit color depth output is mandatory.

 

In my view it does not make any sense to buy into the S system and work on a 500 bucks screen or even a Mac Retina...

 

The day you buy an Eizo (or comperable) you will hate yourself for each single day not having bought it earlier

Bingo. I learned that lesson by burning through reams of costly printer paper as I made my  way up the printer food chain to the Epson 7800 that I have had for nearly ten years. Several years ago when I upgraded my computer I bought a 24" NEC MultiSynch screen. It came with a calibration device that I use every month or so (it reminds me....). For me the Holy Grail is not the image out of the camera onto the screen, but off the screen onto the paper. With this screen, and proper printer profiles, I get an excellent screen to paper match - at least color-wise. The reality is that they way an image looks on a back lit, electronic screen is going to be different on a piece of very analog paper. But you can compensate for this tonal difference in PP.

Obliged for yours.

David